Correcting the Estimated Level of Differential Expression for Gene Selection Bias: Application to a Microarray Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The level of differential gene expression may be defined as a fold change, a frequency of upregulation, or some other measure of the degree or extent of a difference in expression across groups of interest. On the basis of expression data for hundreds or thousands of genes, inferring which genes are differentially expressed or ranking genes in order of priority introduces a bias in estimates of their differential expression levels. A previous correction of this feature selection bias suffers from a lack of generality in the method of ranking genes, from requiring many biological replicates, and from unnecessarily overcompensating for the bias. For any method of ranking genes on the basis of gene expression measured for as few as three biological replicates, a simple leave-one-out algorithm corrects, with less overcompensation, the bias in estimates of the level of differential gene expression. In a microarray data set, the bias correction reduces estimates of the probability of upregulation or downregulation from 100% to as low as 60%, even for genes with estimated local false discovery rates close to 0. A simulation study quantifies both the advantage of smoothing estimates of bias before correction and the degree of overcompensation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".